Mark wrote:You did invite comments on your article at the start of this thread did you not? However, as you haven't got the overwhelmingly positive feedback you seem to have anticipated , you have adopted a rather defensive and at times petulant tone.

Anybody who publishes a new idea would be rather naive to expect mostly positive feedback. I have been throwing out ideas all my life, and usually what you get is mostly negative feedback, which is how it should be. We know the proverb of the 3 stages of a new idea: first it gets ridiculed, next it gets strongly opposed, and finally it is accepted as self-evident (of course the latter only happens if there is any merit in the idea).

Some people question my mapping of the signs to the directions. Good for them. But it doesn't automatically mean that I have to agree with it. I give my reasons why I am doing it in this way. May make sense to some, not so to others.. That's how it goes.
And if that appears defensive and petulant to you, so be it.

Mark wrote:Of course you are fully entitled to adopt any method you like. However, you would carry a lot more people with you if you worked within the conventions of western astrology.

Good insight. The person who proposes a new method is not bound by any traditions. Traditions are not written in stone, and even less so when it comes to a method that was not a part of the tradition to begin with.

How to carry more people, that's the thinking of somebody who tries to be popular. That's not my way.
My concern is how to make the most practical use of an idea, and then whether it works or not..

The people who are upset because their tradition is not being followed or 'respected', that are usually not the people who are most eager to try new methods.

Mark wrote:Moreover, you must surely know that this is not an irrelevent matter. It going to lead to quite different results in real charts.

Did you try?


Those who read my complete article and try it for themselves on a piece of paper, and try alternative mappings of the signs to the directions, they are likely to figure out why I am doing it in the given way.
The others will go on lamenting that their tradition is not followed.
But these people have plenty of traditional techniques to chose from.
I think it is perfectly good that way.

Shouldn?t we end this discussion? Four Pillars obviously think his system is good as it is, and completely dismissed any other suggestion, and he has had the last word. So, I don?t see the point of keeping the thread open. Unless, of course, if fourpillars want to put some real predictions (not in hindsight) in this thread to show the power of his method, as it is, they would be most welcomed.

A suggestion to members is that if anybody wants to just present their system, but are not interested in really discussing it, it is better to just keep a link in the News session for anybody interested it in to look at their own time. The other forums are supposed to bring different opinions and points of views.

Eddy wrote:
In some sense it has always bothered me that in Tetrabiblos I-10 (Robbins) Ascendant is associated with dryness and Descendant with moist, while in analogy with the seasons it should be mirrored. Ptolemy?s division (rarely used by traditional astrologers) in four quarters of elements in the order of Moist, Heat, Dryness and Cold would feel better when equally applied to the angles/compass- directions.

Yes, there is something strange in this. I believe Ptolemy took from Aristotle, but it does not fit with the rest. The same Prof.Bezza prefers to follow the quadrants order.

margherita

MikeCoup wrote:

I've concluded this because the Chinese directionology approach you take is derived from a seasonal/symbolic calendar based system which has no connection to the ecliptic based Western system which you are combining into one diagram.

As I suggested earlier the Chinese directional associations do seem very ancient and pre-date calendrical systems such as Four Pillar and Nine Star by thousands of years. The Chinese quadrants and their derived lunar mansions do still claim a seasonal origin. For example the super constellation known as as the Azure Dragon is assocated with western constellations such as Virgo. It is linked to the eastern direction and the spring season.

According to authorities on Chinese astrology such as Derek Walters the marker star for the beginning of the Azure Dragon was the fixed star Spica in the constellation of Virgo. In the western tropical zodiac today this star is around 24 Libra.

So how could stars associated with spring time be linked to the autumnal season today? The answer is of course due to the effects of precession. The precession of the equinoxes means that these associations might have developed at a time when this super constellation was prominent in the night sky around spring time. However, for this to be the case the tradition would need to date back to at least 10,000 BCE near the beginning of the neolithic period in ancient China. Astronomers have traditionally dismissed this this idea as totally implausible. However, the discovery of neolithic burial remains featuring the symbols of the four super constellations places this tradition back at least 7,500 years ago. The seasonal associations of the four great constellations or quadrants therefore could represent one of the oldest continuous astrological traditions in human culture.

Mark

Hi Eddy and Margherita

I use (and teach) Ptolemy's divisions. The two schemes connect through the association of the chart angles with the seasonal quarters of the Sun's progress on the ecliptic (asc=spring (moist) MC=summer (warm) desc=autumn (dry) ic=winter (cold)) and the diurnal quarters of the Sun's daily apparent path. Associating the angles with the natural zodiac gives us:

Aries (asc) cardinal sign of the fire triplicity - due east
Capricorn (MC) cardinal sign of the earth triplicity - due south
Libra (desc) cardinal sign of the air triplicity - due west
Cancer (IC) cardinal sign of the water triplicity - due north

All of the fire signs point eastwards, all earth signs south, all air signs west and all water signs north. Of any triplicity, the (pre-ascended) sign that falls upon the right of the cardinal sign will provide the adjective of either south or west, whichever is appropriate. The sign that falls upon the left of the cardinal sign will provide the contrary adjectives of north or east. For example, when Aries is on the asc Sagittarius is pre-ascended so that provides the adjective south (because west of east isn't appropriate); hence the direction of Sagittarius is east by south, whilst Leo is east by north.

I have an article with diagrams which show the principle as being very easy to understand and remember, but the above captures the gist of it for anyone that wants to think it through.

The traditiional association of directions with triplicities is very ancient and goes back to ancient Mesopotamian techniques for forecasting the directions of winds and meteorological events, as well as the territorial regions that would bring problems or profit. It also integrates into many other astrological principles, besides being used regularly by horary astrologers in establishing the direction of missing goods, persons, etc. So lots of good reasons to retain understanding of it I think.

Best wishes
Deb

Deb wrote:

The traditiional association of directions with triplicities is very ancient and goes back to ancient Mesopotamian techniques for forecasting the directions of winds and meteorological events, as well as the territorial regions that would bring problems or profit. It also integrates into many other astrological principles, besides being used regularly by horary astrologers in establishing the direction of missing goods, persons, etc. So lots of good reasons to retain understanding of it I think.

Thanks Deb,

I have been planning for a while to open a thread on the traditional forum on astrological geography with particular focus on nations and cities. There seem to be two distinct sources for these associations. One relating back to the directionology for triplicities proposed by Ptolemy and another tradition based more on foundational charts which seems more Persian/Arab in derivation. Its interesting though that there were quite a lot of variations seen in the classical period. I have also picked up from Gavin White's Babylonian Star Lore book early associations for planets with countries.

You do seem perennially busy with commitments these days but I would like to start such a thread at a time you could participate in it and share your knowledge.

regards

Mark

Hello Deborah

Deb wrote:Hi Eddy and Margherita

I use (and teach) Ptolemy's divisions. The two schemes connect through the association of the chart angles with the seasonal quarters of the Sun's progress on the ecliptic (asc=spring (moist) MC=summer (warm) desc=autumn (dry) ic=winter (cold)) and the diurnal quarters of the Sun's daily apparent path.

Best wishes
Deb

Yes, I believe Eddy and me agree about this, but we were puzzled about Ptolemy statement: Similarly, too, of the four regions and angles of the horizon, from which originate the winds from the cardinal points, the eastern one likewise excels in dryness because, when the sun is in that region, whatever has been moistened by the night then first begins to be dried; (I,10)

Why? it does not fit with the general behaviour of everything else, where whatever is at its beginning it's moist...

I believe in Cieloeterra they solve in the same way as you do, putting moisture at the Ascendant, it's impossible to be faithful to Ptolemy here.

margherita

If I understand you correctly, then people are not welcome to discuss their system here, unless they agree to change it according to the suggestions that are brought by the other members?

Hello Danny,

As the moderator on the mundane forum I can assure you that is not and never will be the case. The idea here is to share ideas and engage in a dialogue. Noone is expected to accept others views axiomatically here.

However, we are all entitled to our own views too and that sometimes leads to fundamental disagreements that reach an impasse. I suspect that was what Yuzuru was getting at.

I do think some serious objections have been raised regarding the basic principles you have based your new technique on. The issue isn't about opposing new ideas just because they are new but reflecting on whether new techniques are consistent with the core principles of the astrological tradition. I can see you like the personna of the pioneer sweeping away old fashioned thinking. Fair enough. Sometimes we all need a fresh outlook on things. However, we all have to work with some conventions. No astrologer can decide to re-order the signs of the zodiac or change the meaning of a planet or house on a whim for arbitrary reasons. If one is going to propose a radical depature from core astrological traditions they do I feel need to set out a clear case why this is so. In my opinion you have failed to do so. You have justified your approach in the contrast between the earth map mirroring/reversing the sky map. However, I am not aware of the western astrological tradition mentioning that. Indeed I dont think even Chinese astrology does that. As you state in your article you adopted your directionology approach by adapting Nine Star Ki/ Feng Shui principles to the earth and then applying it to the tropical zodiac. It appears to me you have attempted to graft Chinese astrological principles of directionology on to the western tropical zodiac. Not that surprising considering your background in Chinese astrology and Feng Shui.

That is not to say the basic idea lacks merit.

I suggested you might consider tweaking your approach a little to make it more compatible with western astrology. However you interpreted that as courting populism at the expense of astrological truth. I must say for someone offering an 'experimental' technique for discussion you do seem rather fixed in your views already. Still if you are convinced only your method works and all alternatives fail so be it. The inevitable outcome of that approach is that you will be left following a solitary path challenging the entire western astrological tradition rather than working within it. The choice is yours.

Mark

I would clarify, but you have continuously shown your lack of will to listen to anyone?s voice but yours, so I don?t see the point. I was talking to other members, specially Mark. I feel that the topic of directions, as Deb is showing, can be very interesting, but probably it would need a different thread, where we don?t have to be constantly addressing your personal method and idiosyncrasies.

But as long as others members are interested, Mark will probably keep the thread open, but I am out. Too old for this.

Yuzuru wrote:

I feel that the topic of directions, as Deb is showing, can be very interesting, but probably it would need a different thread

I agree. I want to discuss it more in a traditional context now but that will necessitate it moving to another forum area. I still want to stick with a mundane focus though. I could open it on the mundane forum but I suspect it will quickly get quite historical and text specific.

I would really like to get to the bottom of many of the associations for countries and cities you see in traditional texts.

Mark

This is a problematic thread. I'm not sure if it should be closed but I understand the frustrations in it, and think that if it does continue discussion should centre upon general astrological issues rather than personal preferences. Everyone is free to share opinion here but its best to forward views on their own merits, rather than criticising other views or opinions.

Margherita wrote:

Yes, I believe Eddy and me agree about this, but we were puzzled about Ptolemy statement: Similarly, too, of the four regions and angles of the horizon, from which originate the winds from the cardinal points, the eastern one likewise excels in dryness because, when the sun is in that region, whatever has been moistened by the night then first begins to be dried; (I,10)

Why? it does not fit with the general behaviour of everything else, where whatever is at its beginning it's moist...

I believe in Cieloeterra they solve in the same way as you do, putting moisture at the Ascendant, it's impossible to be faithful to Ptolemy here.

Hi Margherita,
But I do follow Ptolemy's work and would never put moisture on the ascendant, so apologies if I left that impression. The asssociation of the asc-desc axis with dryness and moisture is not coming from the seasonal or directional alignment, but from the association of sect. I.e., the ascendant and eastern hemisphere is defined by the masculine principle of dryness; and the the desc/western hemisphere is defined by the feminine principle of moisture. That's pretty fundamental and not to be tampered with in my opinion, since many other astrological schemes and philosophies rest upon it. But it's a different logic than that used in the association of signs and directions. Directions are associated with the signs through a triplicity assocition with the Sun's seasonal cycle, whereas the humoral qualities of the angles are defined by the diurnal cycle and are relevant to planetary influence rather than sign-association.

Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.

Best wishes
Deb

PS - Unfortunately Mark I can't commit to detailed discussions in the short term - for the moment it's a luxury for me to pop into the forum when I can.

Deb wrote: Hi Margherita,
But I do follow Ptolemy's work and would never put moisture on the ascendant, so apologies if I left that impression. The asssociation of the asc-desc axis with dryness and moisture is not coming from the seasonal or directional alignment, but from the association of sect. I.e., the ascendant and eastern hemisphere is defined by the masculine principle of dryness; and the the desc/western hemisphere is defined by the feminine principle of moisture. That's pretty fundamental and not to be tampered with in my opinion, since many other astrological schemes and philosophies rest upon it.

Thanks for having find time to explain your thought better.

Yes, I understand what you mean, we find this for example as lying rule in chorography chapter.

But still there is something disturbing here, because what if a planet is at the Ascendant? Which is its temperament, dry?

We know from the rest of the work, especially the first book, that everything starting is moist....

Obviously here there is something not in harmony, at least this is a point I heard to talk about.

margherita